Classical Evaluation Frameworks for Energy Efficiency Programs

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Mirjam Harmelink14 March 2012


<ul><li> 1. Classical evaluation frameworks for energy efficiency programsIEA SEAI Workshop on Evaluating the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency14th March 2012, IEA, ParisMirjam Harmelink (Harmelink consulting)Harmelink consulting</li></ul> <p> 2. Program/Policy Planning CyclePolicyPortfolio ProgramObjectives DesignDesign Program MonitoringProgram and Evaluation ImplementationHarmelink 3. Types of evaluation carried out in the field ofenergy efficiency programs EvaluationDescription Uses type ImpactQuantifies direct and indirectDetermines amount of energy evaluationbenefits of the program/policysavings, emission reductions and in some cases possible co-benefits Process Indicates how the Identifies how program/policy Evaluationprogram/policy implementation process can be improved procedures are performing from both administration and participant perspective Market EffectsIndicates how the overall supplyDetermines changes that have Evaluationchain and market have beenoccurred in markets and whether affected by the program they are sustainable with or without the program/policy Cost- Quantifies the cost of programDetermines whether the energy effectiveness implementation and compares efficiency program/policy is a cost- evaluationprogram/possible benefits effective investments as compared to other programs and energy supply resourcesSource: National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Leadership Group (2007)Harmelink consulting 4. What do we typically evaluate in impact evaluations? To what extent did policy What was the cost instruments make a effectiveness of the To what extentdifference in meeting thepolicy instruments,are policy targetstargets compared to theand could targets being met? situation without the policyhave been reachedinstruments in place? against lower costs? Target achiev. /Impact/ EfficiencyEffectiveness Effectiveness Ex ante Ex post 4Harmelink consulting 5. Main challenge: setting the baseline With policies Energy savings/CO2 reductions Net policy impact Gross ChangeBaseline(no policies)Autono-mouschange Policy launch MeasurementHarmelink consulting 6. Methods applied in policy evaluationTop down methods End use or sector indicators Economic / econometric modellingBottom-up methods Direct measurement Analysis of energy billing or sales Modelling (based on stock and market statistics and surveys) Enhanced engineering estimates Mixed deemed and ex-post estimate Deemed estimate Theory based policy evaluation Logic modelling Equipment indicatorsHarmelink consulting 7. Energy efficiency programs often have multiple objectivesOther Poverty control Competiveness/employmentInnovation CO2-reductionEnergy savings onlyNumber of case studies0246810 12Source: Ecofys, Lund University, Politecnico Milano, Wuppertal Institute (2007) www.aid-ee.orgHarmelink consulting 8. Examples on exploring (co-)benefits (1) Source: DECC (2009)Harmelink consulting 9. Examples on exploring (co-)benefits (2)Source: RIVM, ECN (2010) Co-impacts of climate policies on air polluting emissions in theNetherlandsHarmelink consulting 10. Main challenges Developing good evaluation framework &gt; linkingenergy efficiency improvements and co-benefits in aplausible way (theory) Developing a sound baselines Defining suitable indicators Results should spur the right discussion &gt; butremember Tinbergen Rule: for each and every policy target theremust be at least one policy tool. If there are fewertools than targets, then some policy goals will not beachievedHarmelink 11. Thank you for your attention! For more information please contactMirjam Harmelink mirjam@harmelinkconsulting.nlT: +31 6 4234248311Harmelink consulting</p>


View more >